MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:            November 20, 2003 
		DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003090176

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Yvonne J. Foskey		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		Chairperson	
	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a honorable discharge (HD)

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was given no help for his drinking problem while he was in the service.  He received no counseling from psychologists, chaplains, or other service providers.  No one tried to help him with his problems.  He states that when he entered the Army, alcohol use was a way of life for him.  This continued and was also accepted behavior in the Army while he was in training.  Once he was assigned to Germany, he encountered prejudice, both on and off post, which he was not used to.  This coupled with the fact that he discovered his father, who he had thought dead, was in fact in a mental institution and was dying caused him to drink even more.  He was unaware of the dangers of alcohol use at the time and it was not until years of wasted time that he got help for his problem.  He states that now, through the help of God, his wife, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and his church, he tries to keep it together one day at a time.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 24 August 1954, he initially enlisted in the Army.  He continuously served on active duty until receiving an UD on 24 October 1956.  His record shows that he was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 111 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of company punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) on four separate occasions between 15 September 
1955 and 6 June 1956, and his conviction of being AWOL by a summary 
court-martial on 4 May 1956.

On 17 September 1956, the applicant’s unit commander requested that a board of officers be appointed to consider taking elimination action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208.  Included with the commander’s request were statements from his first sergeant, platoon sergeant, and squad leader.  These statements all indicated that the applicant repeatedly went AWOL, that he had a poor attitude towards the Army and his superiors, and they all recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army.  

On 22 September 1956, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander’s action and he elected to waive his right to be represented by counsel before the board of officers and his right to call witnesses on his behalf.

On 24 September 1956, a board of officers convened to consider the applicant’s case.  After considering the case, the board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 and that he receive an UD.  The separation authority accepted the recommendation of the board of officers and directed that the applicant be discharged accordingly. 

The applicant provides two letters of support from friends.  These letters contain language attesting to the applicant’s recent outstanding character and good citizenship.

On 23 October 1958, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed the applicant’s case and found that the characterization and reason for his discharge were proper and equitable, and it voted to deny the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.  

Army Regulation 635-208, in effect at the time, provided for the separation of members for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  An UD was normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he was not provided any help or counseling to deal with his drinking problem while serving, and that there were personal family problems that contributed to his misconduct were carefully considered.  In addition, the letters of support provided by the applicant’s friends were also reviewed and considered.  However, given the applicant’s undistinguished overall record of service, these factors were not found sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record further confirms that all requirements by law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  As a result, an upgrade to his discharge would not be appropriate at this time.  

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JHL_  _LDS___  __RLD _         DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090176	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/11/	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1956/10/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-208	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.